Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: tegra186: Fix initial frequency
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
CC:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        <linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20200712100645.13927-1-jonathanh@nvidia.com>
 <20200713032554.cykywnygxln6ukrl@vireshk-i7>
From:   Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>
Message-ID: <3d6091f2-6b04-185f-6c23-e39a34b87877@nvidia.com>
Date:   Mon, 13 Jul 2020 17:37:36 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200713032554.cykywnygxln6ukrl@vireshk-i7>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 13/07/2020 04:25, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 12-07-20, 11:06, Jon Hunter wrote:
>> Commit 6cc3d0e9a097 ("cpufreq: tegra186: add
>> CPUFREQ_NEED_INITIAL_FREQ_CHECK flag") fixed CPUFREQ support for
>> Tegra186 but as a consequence the following warnings are now seen on
>> boot ...
>>
>>  cpufreq: cpufreq_online: CPU0: Running at unlisted freq: 0 KHz
>>  cpufreq: cpufreq_online: CPU0: Unlisted initial frequency changed to: 2035200 KHz
>>  cpufreq: cpufreq_online: CPU1: Running at unlisted freq: 0 KHz
>>  cpufreq: cpufreq_online: CPU1: Unlisted initial frequency changed to: 2035200 KHz
>>  cpufreq: cpufreq_online: CPU2: Running at unlisted freq: 0 KHz
>>  cpufreq: cpufreq_online: CPU2: Unlisted initial frequency changed to: 2035200 KHz
>>  cpufreq: cpufreq_online: CPU3: Running at unlisted freq: 0 KHz
>>  cpufreq: cpufreq_online: CPU3: Unlisted initial frequency changed to: 2035200 KHz
>>  cpufreq: cpufreq_online: CPU4: Running at unlisted freq: 0 KHz
>>  cpufreq: cpufreq_online: CPU4: Unlisted initial frequency changed to: 2035200 KHz
>>  cpufreq: cpufreq_online: CPU5: Running at unlisted freq: 0 KHz
>>  cpufreq: cpufreq_online: CPU5: Unlisted initial frequency changed to: 2035200 KHz
>>
>> Although we could fix this by adding a 'get' operator for the Tegra186
>> CPUFREQ driver, there is really little point because the CPUFREQ on
>> Tegra186 is set by writing a value stored in the frequency table to a
>> register and we just need to set the initial frequency.
> 
> The hardware still runs at the frequency requested by cpufreq core here, right ?

Yes.

> It is better to provide the get() callback as it is also used to show the
> current frequency in userspace.

I looked at that and I saw that if the get() callback is not provided,
the current frequency showed by userspace is policy->cur. For this
device, policy->cur is accurate and so if we added the get() callback we
essentially just going to return policy->cur. Therefore, given that we
already know policy->cur, I did not see the point in adding a device
specific handler to do the same thing.

Cheers
Jon

-- 
nvpublic